The only doctype for new web pages is strict. You have no need for any other except if you use frames.
The transitional doctype "allows" some deprecated elements, like FONT or FRAMESET, so it depends on the elements you are using (but of course it's recommended that you use Strict and not those elements).
Hello, In contrast to the other replies, I encourage the use of Transitional. Today's browser are all able to show transitional html pages without any problems. It is VERY hard to obtain valid strict html pages, but why would you bother? The visitor will not see the difference unless he reads your source code, which most visitors luckily don't do I don't see any added value on this substantial extra work. What is more important: don't just write the doctype, but make sure that it IS really valid!! Added value: browser compatibility, because you can't possibly check every page on every existing browser in any version on any platform. Remark: this page itself is set to Transitional, but is in fact not valid.
The same is true of strict. Also a false statement. The doctype isn't for the user, it's for the developer, validator and the browser. There is no additional work based on which doctype you use. This does not affect which doctype you use. You don't understand what doctypes are for.
Yeah i agree with the above . Doc types are simply guidelines. They dont guarantee that it will work in every browser.That is infact your job. It simply guides you to use certain tools ie html elements that is valid to that doc type. This site is transitional for a reason and not what NemoPlus implied.
I always start with this one. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Code (markup): Why ? Because it's been working for me since the first time I tried it.
Who gives a shit. I have good numbers for time on site and page views per visit. My sites render the same in all browsers with the exception of a few oddball things like border-radius that make no significant difference. My sites support themselves financially. I really have no incentive to piddlefuck around worrying about whether I picked the absolute best possible DOCTYPE for my pages. This one works and I don't have to tear my hair out any time I want to implement some sort of 3rd party code or something as trivial as a TARGET attribute on a link.
Ive literally just finished reading a book tonight that includes a lot of html info and advice and its suggested to go with strict, from other books ive read and also from dozens of web dev blogs that ive read.
Those of us who aren't clueless like you. Only the clueless would think the doctype has any affect on that. Three years from now, you won't be in this business. Again, only the clueless think the doctype has anything to do with that.
Really ? That's funny, because I've been in this same discussion multiple times on other forums for about the last 6 years. Back then I was arguing your point. Today I don't waste my time worrying about it. I do better today than I did back then. That's the whole point of this, right, to do better than we were before ? I used to think that to.
You canot simply use something because it works. You need to know why it works etc. Its like going into a computer store and you are buying a computer. So what you are saying is who gives a shit what computer i buy they all work the same . No thats exactly what you wont be saying & doing and that is my point and others here , there's other factors involved same with doctypes.